IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
EX PARTE GUADALUPE VASQUEZ, Applicant
CAUSE NO. 2004-404,954 IN THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY
O P I N I O N
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of assault on a public servant and aggravated assault on a public servant, and he was sentenced, respectively, to concurrent terms of ten years and ninety-nine years in prison. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions in an unpublished opinion. Vasquez v. State, No. 07-04-000482-CR (Tex. App. – Amarillo del. Aug. 19, 2005).
Applicant contends he was denied his right to pursue a petition for discretionary review from the appellate court’s decision. Appellate counsel has provided an affidavit regarding the claim, and based on that affidavit, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending relief be granted. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of theft and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to timely advise the Applicant of his right to appeal. The Applicant further alleges that counsel’s failure to advise him of his appellate rights caused him to miss the deadline for filing a notice of appeal and for appellate counsel to be untimely appointed by the trial court. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Continue reading
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
EX PARTE WILLIAM EDWARD MARCHBANKS, Applicant
CAUSE NO. 1188975R IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1
FROM TARRANT COUNTY
O P I N I O N
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty-eight and thirty-five years’ imprisonment, respectively. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions in a published opinion. Marchbanks v. State, 341 S.W.3d 559, No. 02-10-00134-CR (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2011).
Applicant contends he was not advised of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that relief be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The findings and recommendation are supported by the writ record provided to this Court.
On May 18, 2011, appellant Bernard Troy Walker entered a plea of guilty to the offense of murder. Walker subsequently filed a motion for return of property, seeking to recover $2,000.00 found in the vehicle Walker was driving the night of the murder. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal ensued. On appeal, Walker contends the trial court erred in denying his motion. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Based on the stipulated facts attached to Walker’s plea agreement, the facts of the night in question are as follows. 
On September 13, 2008, Walker arranged to meet Isaac Vela to sell marijuana to Vela. According to witnesses at the scene, Vela entered Walker’s vehicle. After several minutes, Walker shot Vela multiple times. Walker was arrested for the murder, his vehicle was impounded, and a search warrant was obtained to collect evidence from the vehicle. During the search of the vehicle, officers found $2,000.00 (one hundred twenty dollar bills) between the front seats. Walker claims this money was his and because the State did not file an Article 59 forfeiture proceeding, he was entitled to return of the money. See
TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.ANN. art. 59 (West Supp. 2011). The State, on the other hand, contends Walker failed to prove he had a greater right of possession and the facts equally support a finding that the money was brought to the scene of the crime by the deceased. Continue reading
Appellant Clarence Wes Curl Jr. appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault and other charges. He raises two issues on appeal: (1) the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment rights by admitting testimony regarding Curl’s exercise of his right to remain silent; and (2) his trial counsel’s failure to object to the testimony constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
On March 24, 2008, Corporal Scott Johnson of the San Marcos Police Department was assigned a case regarding the sexual assault of minor J.M. that occurred over several years. 
As an expert on criminal investigations of child abuse and sexual assaults of children, the case was assigned to Corporal Johnson. Corporal Johnson had known Curl for several years through their church, and Curl had even called him about an unrelated case the previous month. During that conversation, Curl relayed his concern regarding his ex-wife orchestrating something in another county. Corporal Johnson explained that because the allegations involved incidents in a different county, he would not have any information about the case. Continue reading
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
A jury convicted appellant Dillon Emanuel Powell of felony money laundering. On appeal, Powell asserts: (1) the indictment was defective for failing to provide sufficient notice; (2) the evidence was legally insufficient; and (3) the trial court erred in denying Powell’s motion to suppress. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
On March 25, 2010, Investigator Shannon Conklin stopped a vehicle for following too closely and registration violations. Due to heavy traffic, Investigator Conklin approached the passenger side of the vehicle. The driver, Powell, identified himself and provided Investigator Conklin a Maryland driver’s license and paperwork on the vehicle, which was owned by Powell’s employer, Low Budget Auto Sales. Powell explained he was traveling from Houston to Phoenix to see his sick step-father. When questioned further, Powell told Investigator Conklin he was going to Oro Valley, but Investigator Conklin knew, from personal experience, that Oro Valley was actually a suburb of Tucson, not Phoenix. Continue reading
Appellant Shann Alaric Rowan was convicted by a jury of murder and assessed a punishment of confinement in the TDCJ-ID for a term of ninety-nine years. On appeal Rowan asserts that the trial court erred by allowing a potentially biased venire member to sit on the jury, thus denying his right to a fair and impartial trial. We affirm the trial court’s order and judgment.
During voir dire, Rowan’s counsel asked venire member Frank Aguilar where he worked. Aguilar responded that he worked part-time for the IRS in San Antonio, Texas. Counsel asked Aguilar if he knew Susie Burns, a person who might be a witness in the case; Aguilar responded that he did not. Burns is Rowan’s mother, but counsel did not mention that relationship during voir dire. Rowan did not challenge Aguilar, and Aguilar was seated on the jury. Burns did not testify at trial but testified during the motion for new trial. Continue reading